CSIRO adopts Phil Jones’ Stonewall Tactic

David Stockwell has been providing an interesting report at his blog on his efforts to obtain for a recent lurid report on Australian drought, only to be stonewalled on grounds of “Intellectual Property Rights”, a pretext familiar to CA readers.

A new report is predicting a dramatic loss of soil moisture, increased evaporation and reduced ground water levels across much of Australia’s farming regions, as temperatures begin to rise exponentially.

The joint CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology report was commissioned by the Federal Government as part of a review of national drought policy.

David wrote to the author asking politely for the data:

Dear Kevin, Thank you for your explanation and summary of the results of your significance tests. Sweeping other issues to the side, I would simply like to check the significance of your results of increasing droughts in Australia. To do this I think it would be sufficient to have:

1. The individual 13 values for areal % used to obtain each of the mean and extreme values in tables 4, 7 and 9. 2. The data you used in the significance tests you quote below. Delimited text files are best. 3. A description of the method you used to determine your significance.

I am assuming that the return period is a deterministic function of areal % and so additional tests of significance will be redundant. If not, the respective data for return period would also be of interest.

The results you quote below were interesting and I would like to resolve any conflicting results that arise. I note that your quoted significances reconcile with your claims that “more declarations would be likely, and over larger areas, in the SW, SWWA and Vic&Tas regions, with little detectable change in the other regions.”

I’m not able to hand over the data from the 13 models, due to restrictions on Intellectual Property, but I can describe the methods used to determine statistical significance.

whereupon he gave what seems to be a typically lousy description of the methodology. (I promised Jud Partin not to make sarcastic comments about ‘climate scientists’, but this is getting ridiculous.)

David’s opposite conclusions – but hampered by the inability to consult either the data or a proper exposition of the methodology:

If this is the case, then it is highly likely the confidence intervals were grossly underestimated and so it is also likely that only one or two regions (SWWA) show statistically significant increase in predicted droughts, not 3 or 4 as claimed by the authors. I am more confident in my original assessment that the results show no significant increase in drought due to greenhouse warming in almost all regions of Australia

I wonder whether stonewalling techniques are discussed behind closed doors at Team conferences. [Note to literal minded readers: this sentence is meant sarcastically. I do not think that Monty Python-esque conferences are held in which Team scientists have learned discussions of the latest masonry techniques of FOI legislation. Though I have been told that the issue of CA criticism of failing to archive data has been discussed and Briffa for one decided to stay the course in refusing data.]

We first heard “IPR” as a meme with Phil Jones, now supposedly re-incarnated as the lead author of the PR Challenge, who famously said:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.

This policy appears to have been adopted by CSIRO as well.

The policy is absurd. If authors want to keep their data private, then don’t publish articles and, especially, don’t issue press releases. If you’re going to publish articles – especially articles the results of which are going to be disseminated to the public, as here – then forget about “IPR” in the data. Let people look at the data. Who knows – maybe they’ll agree.

107 Comments

Steve, you should come up with a term yourself — something along the lines of “Peer Review Compliant” or “Pro-Transparent” to effectively describe those that make their data and methods available.

This is simply ridiculous.

I develop web applications and am very familiar with the fruits of proprietary labor. But science — particularly science intended for policy impact — hiding its methods to prevent scrutiny is simply not science at all. It is opinion.

The documentation of the pervasive stonewalling is certainly needed and ought to be changing bad habits, but it’s not. Realistically, it will take some journalist to get on this and not let it go until it reaches a critical size. Right now the public just doesn’t know about it and if it did, just wouldn’t understand the importance, especially when there are more immediate problems like paying for the gas and groceries. Cast as a scandal (not malfeasance, but sloppy and arrogant behavior), it might be enough to bring in some fresh air. The problem is that established science writers either don’t believe there is a problem, figure it’s not a big problem, or don’t want to alienate sources that have provided them with good copy. Newbie science writers don’t have the chops to tackle something this risky to a career, non-science writers have too high a barrier to clear in order to understand the problem, and political writers are too easily labeled as partisans. Until the right person undertakes this in the right way, I don’t see things changing.

Last year a new large telescope started operations in Spain. I read the press relase and if I remember correctly there stated clearly all the data collected by the astronomers were considered public domain and would be properly archived by the institution running the telescope facilities. What the astronomers collecting the data had was a window of opportunity for the data reduction before anybody else (can´t remember the timeframe, maybe 6 months). After that period expired the data was open and accesible for everybody. I think that is a mandatory policy to be accepted by anyone requesting time of observation at that research facility. So no IPR issues on the data. I pressume the institution has a set of standards for data archiving.

A new report is predicting a dramatic loss of soil moisture, increased evaporation and reduced ground water levels across much of Australia’s farming regions, as temperatures begin to rise exponentially.

As temperatures begin to rise exponentially? This is just ridiculous. Not much to worry about if this is true. We will all be cinders in no time.

It would be interesting to know precisely what kind of intellectual property rights or IPR are being claimed. Facts, mathematical formulae, ideas, and methods cannot be protected by copyright. Patents may in some instances copyright some methods which are deemed to constitute an invention, but such examples are the subject of a great dispute.

The facts of the Universe, the data, are not protected by IPR. Only the unique expressions of the data are protected to the extent those works are creative and unique in their expression and not in their factual content.

The fact that a particular observation station reports an air tempeature of a given value is a fact of the Universe and not a unique and creative expression protected by copyright, patent, or other intellectual property right. The fact that a particular mathematical method was used to obtaina certain mathematical result is a fact and not a unique and creative object of copyright except to the extent that the writing or other expression presenting the mathematics presents a unique presentation of the mathematics.

Governments are not constrained to honor patent rights. They are the judge of the collective good and so can determine how the best interests of the public are served. Similarly governments can choose whether or not to honour other types of IPR. If major decisions are being based on data that is restricted by IPR then the government can choose to release the data. They can also compensate the IPR holders if they so choose. For example, the Canadian government has a compulsory licensing program for patented drugs. Patent holders are compelled to license their IPR to generic drug manufacturers.

* is general information provided as part of CSIRO’s statutory role in the dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters
* is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice
* is subject to the usual uncertainties of advanced scientific and technical research
* may not be accurate, current or complete
* is subject to change without notice
* should never be relied on as the basis for doing or failing to do something

I especially like the last line. Why is anyone publishing CSIRO information that should not be relied on?

Following up on #5, is there even a point of claiming IPR? Are they applying for a patent whereby they will make money on licensing the technology or selling a product as the sole producer? Generally speaking, that’s why someone would claim IPR and make a patent application.

Otherwise, I see no point. Are they afraid if their “methods and data” were in the public, where anyone could do the research, they might lose current(or future) grant money?

Exactly, and to follow-up on the points made in comment 5, consider that the very purpose of intellectual property rights is to protect the ownership of intellectual property so that one doesn’t have to keep it secret.

For instance, a patent allows an inventor to sell a product to the public — meaning that anyone can get their hands on the product and develop a full understanding of its design, features, etc. — but no one can make and sell the patented product without the patent holder’s permission.

Likewise, a copyright allows an author to publish a novel — and anyone who wants to read it can know every word between its covers — but the copyright means that you cannot reproduce or use the contents without the author’s permission.

So it is nonsensical to assert the existence of intellectual property rights as grounds for keeping data secret. IF, and that’s a big IF, intellectual property rights can be claimed for the data or methods involved, then there is no LEGAL reason to keep them secret — that is, secrecy is NOT required to protect one’s ownership rights.

In fact, in all likelyhood, the exact opposite is the case: namely, that there is NO basis for claiming intellectual property rights in these cases and citing IPR is merely a smokescreen.

Well, if they are not claiming that the data and methods are protected by Patents, Trademarks or Copyrights then that only leaves the forth category: Trade Secrets. I think it would be very worthwhile to clearly establish exactly what kind of IP rights they are claiming. Any journalist would take pause at the notion that the data and methods are trade secrets. If they are claiming that the data is a trade secret, then anyone who gets the data would need to be a party to a Confidential Disclosure Agreement. Are the Team scientists all subject to a Confidential Disclosure Agreement? Does this mean that only parties to the CDA can be peer reviewers? Wow, that would be quite a close knit club. Or, do the peer reviewers simply not get to look at the data or methods?

Funding source and terms of the contracting document are also part of the equation. When I do work for DOD or DOJ the data, methods and documenation are usually government purpose rights. That is the government can do anything they want with it. I usually copyright the code with appropriate licensing but that is to protect my government (US gov can’t copy right material) customers not to claim IP over the material. If I copyright the material then another company, usually a big prime, cannot come back and essentially sell the code back to the government with some minor mods.

Another question to ask CSIRO is for the identity of the IPR owners. A request could be made to them to waive any concerns they have with the release of the data. If the owner is an agency of a government in Australia then the permission should come quickly.

Re 3
Interestingly the procedure described is identical to the one used by NASA (well, not Hansen/GISS of course, but the real, spaceflying, part of NASA). The european space agency ESA on the other hand lives by the principle that the data are the private property of the Principal Investigator, and are to be released as late and as incompletely as humanly possible.

I believe that in the US inventors can claim precedence over holders of patents (from the Latin ‘to lay open’, strange under the circumstances) for a limited period but in most of the world rights come with publication. The main purpose being to encourage scientific understanding – and help the economy.
If it is not published it is not protected; it is a Trade Secret.

Does this mean that government policy is determined by trade secrets. Not good!

I understand, but the language is the issue. Another example of someone using language that is aimed at scaring people. Terms like “unprecidented” and “exponentially”, etc. I guess it is just sad to see the author’s agenda being so transparent, like they are not even trying to hide thier bias because they have no fear of being called on it.

A new report is predicting a dramatic loss of soil moisture, increased evaporation and reduced ground water levels across much of Australia’s farming regions, as temperatures begin to rise exponentially.

is attributable to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not the government report.
That doesn’t affect your IPR-being-used-to-subvert-disclosure argument, but it does affect the assumptions behind several of the posts, above.

One other note. It appears that this study was a government commissioned report. At least in the US, that would mean that the data collected can not be protected by patent or copyright. If it is paid for with public money, the data is in the public domain. I also want to second the point made above, data is not copyrightable or patentable. The models (software code) can be protected by Copyright, but not the output. It would be like Einstein claiming IP rights to his famous equation E-MC^2 and demanding royalties from anyone who ever used it.

Now, do we really have to cover this ground again? While facts cannot be copyrighted, an expression of those facts can be. The printer of the US legal code has validly copyrighted the page numbers. It’s simply ignorant to go beyond what Steve M says and claim that IP rights themselves are invalid. You simply reduce your credibility.

#15 Michael Smith,

I agree with your main point that the withholding author seems to be mixing up copyright and trade secret. Your point that copyright means that it doesn’t need to be kept secret is somewhat valid. The author could simply release the information with the permission to only verify and to publish the result of that verification, with all other rights reserved.

Your last two paragraphs go too far and are invalid. The software I write is copyrighted, but prudence dictates that I do not publish the source, since I do not have the financial means to enforce my copyright. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of crossing the road on the cross walk, even though many cars are coming. You’ll be found to be in the right, but you will be dead right.

>> At least in the US, that would mean that the data collected can not be protected by patent or copyright. If it is paid for with public money, the data is in the public domain.

That’s not true. It’s kind of like an urban myth, like the idea that no one is allowed to use SSN for anything.

>> I also want to second the point made above, data is not copyrightable or patentable.

You may second and third it, it doesn’t change the fact that the expression of data IS protectable by copyright.

The underlying confusion is that there are two different activities: 1) writing and publishing articles to make a living and 2) pure science for the truth’s sake.

If the main goal is #1, copyright makes sense. I see no point in pretending that it’s #2. Let’s just stick with the judgement that the withholding author is stonewalling, and probably lacks scientific integrity.

I think this is going a bit far. Mr Hennessy has promptly investigated the issues I raise,
only like most of climate science the autocorrelation is not properly accounted for.
It is a paper wall and he could be acting on advice, but it means calling
the bluff or raising the stakes.

Droughts are a lot like the hurricane story — lurid claims, no substance.

If the source data supports the conclusions of the research based on the methodology applied (which would be the proprietary part I would think) why would anyone fear releasing it to anyone? How can your work be reviewed if you will not share the source data?

If this is a boys club thing ( only my science friends on 2FaceBook can see my data ) then not much can be done, it is the standard scientific arrogance position.

Perhaps the data is kept in his shoe, and without it he would lean to left?

Your last two paragraphs go too far and are invalid. The software I write is copyrighted, but prudence dictates that I do not publish the source, since I do not have the financial means to enforce my copyright. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of crossing the road on the cross walk, even though many cars are coming. You’ll be found to be in the right, but you will be dead right.

No, I’m not suggesting any such thing. I’m suggesting honesty. If, like you, the real reason they won’t release the information is because they can’t afford to defend their intellectual property rights, then they should simply say so, just as you did above.

However, that’s not what they are saying. Instead, they are invoking those very rights as reasons not to release the information. That’s the part that is nonsensical. It’s like saying that BECAUSE you have a patent, you cannot let anyone see the design of your invention. Or it’s like saying that BECAUSE you have a registered trademark on a proprietary logo, you must keep the logo a secret.

It appears that Australia does have an accessibility law on the books. Maybe some useful info at this site for structuring your request for information.

“In 1 May 2004 the Prime Minister announced You are now leaving the DEST website that the Australian Government would establish Quality and Accessibility Frameworks for Publicly Funded Research You are now leaving the DEST website as part of the Backing Australia’s Ability – Building our Future through Science and Innovation You are now leaving the DEST website. The development of the Research Quality Framework is underway.”

Re: Gunnar
You are right, there is no current requirement for publicly funded researchers to release their data. However, a bill to do that has been introduced in previous Congresses. I misread my source the first time.
Here is the bill that was introduced in 2006, it died in committee.

It is a fact that the Crown (i.e. Australian Federal and State Governments) are NOT subject to copyright law. If one looks at the legislation, the very first line says that the Crown is exempt. CSIRO is a federal government agency. CSIRO is not concerned with I.P., it is concerned with parroting the party line so the government will keep funding it.

It’s not surprising that CSIRO is following Phil Jones’s tactics in thia instance. Kevin Hennessy’s home page at CSIRO states that “His expertise lies in analysis of observed climatic trends, analysis of future greenhouse emissions, development of Australian climate change projections, assessment of potential impacts, communication of climate science and responding to ‘greenhouse sceptics”, and that “Much of his time is spent giving presentations and media interviews.”

Hennessy’s paper “Global warming – the balance of evidence” was initially published in the Australian Financial Review on 26 November 2003 and subsequently submitted to the Inquiry by the Australian Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and Arts Legislation Committee into the Kyoto Protocol Ratification Bill 2003 as an Appendix to the CSIRO’s Submission. With respect to the Castles and Henderson (C&H) critique of the IPCC emissions scenarios, Hennessy said that the claims had ‘been reviewed and refuted by international experts (Nakicenovic and others)’, and on the just-published McIntyre and McKitrick critique of Mann, Bradley & Hughes (1998) he wrote:

“McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M) also claims that the 20th century warmth was not unusual, being exceeded by far greater warmth around 1400 and 1500 AD. However, MBH have shown that this conclusion was based on flawed data and analysis (see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/paleo). Key indicators used in the report of MBH in 1998 appear to have been omitted by M&M for the period 1400-1600, producing anomalous warming in the 15th century, at odds with the cold conditions for that period found in many other climate reconstructions. In particular, three tree-ring datasets covering the period 1400-1600 appear to have been incorrectly eliminated or shortened, and MBH show that this explains most of the spurious 15th century warming. Unlike MBH in 1998, M&M also failed to use a standard statistical technique called cross-validation to verify the skill of their reconstructions. When MBH applied this technique to their data without the three tree ring datasets, the skill score was so poor that the result should have been discarded as unreliable.”

The paper as submitted to the Australian Parliamentary Committee did not provide a reference either to Nakicenovic et al (2003) or MBH (1998), nor did it mention the fact that Castles and Henderson had responded to Nakicenovic and his 14 co-authors more than six months earlier. The paper did however provide references to “Mann, M.E. and 12 others (2003a). On past temperatures and anomalous late-20th century warmth. EOS, 84, 256”; “Mann, M., Bradley, R. and Hughes, M. (2003b). Note on paper by McIntyre and McKitrick in “Energy and Environment”. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/paleo/EandEPaperProblem_03nov03.pdf “ ; and “Mann, M.E. and Jones, P.D. (2003). Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (15), 1820-1823.”

Kevin Hennessy was subsequently appointed a Coordinating Lead Author of the “Australia and New Zealand” chapter of the contribution of Working Group II to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007). The successive drafts of this chapter, together with the comments by expert reviewers and the authors’ replies, are now available on the website of the WGII Technical Support Unit.

I don’t know if, by law, publicly funded research belongs to the public, but I do know that it ought to be. I should not have to file a FOIA request; I should not have to jump through even one hoop. The data should be posted and easily locateable on a public server, after some reasonable period of exclusive use by the gatherers. You want another grant? Have you posted the data from your last one yet? No? By all means, come see us when you have.

Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?

My fantasy: Some day, that will be carved in a stone arch above the gate to the dumpster alley at some prestigious university, with a bronze plaque on one of the pylons reading “In the year 2005, this, the most anti-scientific utterance ever conceived, was made.”

I don’t know if, by law, publicly funded research belongs to the public, but I do know that it ought to be.

Publicly funded research usually belongs to the funding agency unless some special clause is written into the contracts. SBIR’s fall into the latter category. Publicly funded projects where the small business maintains IP rights over the products of the project.

In the US (and most Western countries), anyone can assert a copyright to any creative expression. But, just because you assert a copyright, doesn’t mean that your copyright is valid. For example, I could assert a copyright to the letter ‘r’. Any court would hold that my claim was invalid. But here’s the problem — lets say I assert my copyright to the letter ‘r’ and I give you a license to use my copyrighted work to create a derivative work, but not the right to redistribute my letter ‘r’. Steve comes along and asks you to give him the underlying work that you used to create your derivative. You refuse saying that the underlying work is copyrighted and you don’t have the right to redistribute it. Steve says that’s nonsense, no one can copyright a letter. To which you say, ‘I’m not a legal expert and I’m not going to take the risk of violating MPaul’s copyright’. In such a case, Steve needs to go after me. But if I’m a Russian and not subject to any requirements that I disclose my work, then what? In what jurisdiction do you take up the dispute? Do you even have standing? This lets Jones hide behind some alleged IP rights no matter how ridiculous those claims might be.

national security
research and commercial research activities
confidentiality obligationsthe privacy and business affairs of those who give information to CSIRO.

I suspect the smokescreen is generated through international collaborations like those with Phil Jones who has expressed a desire for privacy.

…………………………..

Australia is rapidly heading for trouble, which is a shame beacuse it can contribute so much SH info to the global picture. I will post separately once I read a “Blue Paper” on emissions trading released today.

There are also aspects of the interim Garnaut report on Climate Change of earlier this month to which I have made some references under

Emission trading is proposed because reports such as those by CSIRO and BOM are alarmist in predicting future AGW. However, the emission trading proposal seems to tax fossil fuel electicity producers to create a pool of money to be given to needy people – who in turn will predictably want to produce their own GHG.

The Garnaut link between climate and man-made effects relies on two econometricians, Breusch & Vahid (see below) doing a statistical analysis of global surface (land and oceans) temperatures for 150 years and showning that the trend rise in the last few decades is JUST significantly greater than the earlier trend. I have contacted them and confirmed that satellite temperatures since 1978 were not used, unless already incorporated into the land/sea surface data.

Here is a recent email exchange with the econometricians, which appears to have dried up soon after (read last one first):

> Thank you for your enquiry. I’m at home and don’t have all the information at my disposal. I’ll give you answers now where I can, because I will be away from the office for most of the coming week. I’ll have to follow up on a couple of your points later.

> Q1. I am generally aware of temperature measurement from satellites. I understand that satellite data are used as partial inputs to the series we used. See this paragraph at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/:

> A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others).

> Q2. The request from the Garnaut Review referred us to the three sources of data that we used. We did not consider any additional data in the study.

> Q5. Compared to the three series of data we analyse, this series is quite short (28-29 years versus 128-158 years). As we discuss in the paper, it is difficult to infer trends from short runs of data. The monthly data record is more numerous, but information about long-run movements is related to the time-span of the series not the number of data points. In addition, there may be seasonality in the monthly data that would complicate the analysis. I’ll have a look at the data, but I don’t expect strong findings.

> Q6,Q7. I’m not surprised that a longer-run series is subject to more criticism than a shorter series. The number of recording locations and the technology of measurement will have changed over time. I’m also not surprised that there are statistical adjustments and judgements (your term “subjective” seems derogatory). The situation will be similar to some well-known time series in economics, such as GDP and consumer prices which are also compiled from raw data coming from many and varied sources. These economic series similarly require adjustments and judgements in their compilation by national statistical agencies.

> Q8. Certainly, when I get to the office.

> Q9. Thank you for these plots. Can you please indicate the source data for the “RSS data”? These seems to be sufficiently different from the MSU data to be worth separate investigation.

> Q10. I interpret this as a statement of your personal values rather than a question or other request, but if you are asking something of me please restate it.

> Trevor Breusch

> Hi Trevor,

> I refer to paper dated July 2008 with Farshid Vahid “Global Temperature Trends”. (As I write it is 5 July 1988, so I hope you are not forecasting. Ross’s report seems to reference this paper, but it was presumably published before 4th July 2008. How did such rapid events happen, with peer review etc? This is not important, I am just fascinated to know.)

> Might I please ask:

> 1. Are you aware that satellite instruments have been measuring global temperatures since the late 1970s?

> 2. Were you and Farshid tempted to include these measurements in your paper?

> 5. Would you be able to do an analysis similar to that relied upon by Ross for surface thermometry per Box 5.1 and make the results available? The satellite data has also had some adjustments, but some climate scientists regard it as more pure than the data that you used.

> 6.Were you/are you aware that there is extreme uncertainty about the validity of the data you used, especially the HADCRU data, where one external author (Douglas Keenan) has a peer-reviewed published paper demonstrating a high probability of fabrication of data?

> 7. Were/are you aware that the HADCRU, GISS and NOAA data are all subject to prior numerical and statistical adjustments, some plausibly subjective; and that there should be caution used when performing statistical tests upon data that have already undergone several layers of statistical adjustment?

> 8. Might you please forward the computational code you used in your 2008 joint paper so that colleagues of mine can use it and comment upon it?

> 9. I have appended graphs of the two main satellite data sets. (The word “satellite” is found in only 3 or so places in Ross’s report, none of them relevant to this topic). You might find a preliminary look to be challenging.

> 10. The shortness of the timetable set by politicians has caused convenient rather than formal attribution and data sources. It is my preference to properly attribute to the source.
Many thanks
Geoff Sherrington

I have been asked to help you with the first 2 points in your email below. The Australian Maximum and Minimum Air Temperature Data CD ROM is available for $113.00. The CD contains all available raw data from earliest records and has just been updated to 30th April 2008.

Payment can be made with AMEX, VISA, Bankcard, Mastercard (we do not accept Diners Club) or by cheque (data is not available until cheque is received in Data Services). Cheques should be made payable to “Collector of Public Monies” and sent

1. I am aware of a BoM version of Australian daily temperatures on a CD starting about 1860 and ending about April 2007. Is there an upgrade being planned? Where should one place an order?

2. There is not much description of “adjustments” that might or might not have been made to these figures. Is there a description of whether the figures are raw and if not, a comprehensive description of the quantitative nature and method(s) of adjustment?

3. A few years ago Carol Skinner was involved with BoM and University of Melbourne in taking temperatures at locations around Melbourne, I presume to ger some idea of UHI effects. Was this work ever published? Can I please have a copy?

4. I am reading again “Climate Change in Australia”, the predictions developed by CSIRO and the BoM for the Australian Climate Change program. It strikes me that there is a need for an upgrade that takes into account, for example, the reality of satellite temperature measurements that show no “hockey stick”. The arguments in this, my later reading, seem to be all of a certain slant, to the certainty of man-made climate chamge. As an example, it is said in your joint publication that “Global sea levels rose by about 17 cm during the 20th century, and by around 10 cm from 1920-2000 at the Australian coastal sites monitored”. This is carefully worded; what is the modern understanding for global sea level change (if any), since Australia cannot act in isolation?
Regards

Geoff Sherrington.

Point 3 of mine is being ignored. Point 4 was answered by suggesting I read the IPCC report.

#3 Rafa says: Last year a new large telescope started operations in Spain. I read the press relase and if I remember correctly there stated clearly all the data collected by the astronomers were considered public domain and would be properly archived by the institution running the telescope facilities. What the astronomers collecting the data had was a window of opportunity for the data reduction before anybody else (can´t remember the timeframe, maybe 6 months). After that period expired the data was open and accesible for everybody. I think that is a mandatory policy to be accepted by anyone requesting time of observation at that research facility. So no IPR issues on the data. I pressume the institution has a set of standards for data archiving.

Not just that one telescope. Such data publication policies are standard across the whole of astronomy. After a proprietary period of between six and eighteen months, astronomical data are placed in the public domain. There are ongoing national, European and global efforts to standardise information technologies for public data access. Here’s one that I’m personally involved in:-

There are already hundreds of astronomical data archives all around the world, all online and publicly accessible using the same protocols and same suite of software. You don’t even have to be an “accredited” professional astronomer, you can just download the software yourself for free. Want to know how to ‘do’ open access to scientific data? Ask an astronomer.

BTW, I moonlight as a technical evaluator for the European Commission, reviewing scientific IT funding proposals, including in the field of climatology ;-)

CSIRO has become an exclusive club. If you believe everything they say based on faith, then you’re in. But if you don’t, and have the temerity to question, then the door gets slammed in your face.
Maybe the should rename of their little club to: “The Pretenders”.

David S, #28: >> I think this is going a bit far. Mr Hennessy has promptly investigated the issues I raise

Good point, I withdraw that comment.

Michael #31 >> I’m suggesting honesty…

So, you are surprised that they don’t say “I’m advancing a political agenda, which would be foiled if you start analyzing my data”?

Michael #31 >> Instead, they are invoking those very rights as reasons not to release the information.

I think you are taking things too literally. If my competitor asked me to release my source code to him, I might answer, “are you crazy, it’s my intellectual property”. And then he could proceed with your argument exactly. As I said, folks want to pretend that it’s all about pure science seeking the truth, when it’s actually about political agendas and/or publishing articles for money and/or prestige.

MPaul #37 >> For example, I could assert a copyright to the letter ‘r’. Any court would hold that my claim was invalid.

You could assert a copyright in your expression of the letter ‘r’. Any court would hold that claim as VALID. Ever heard of typefaces? Ever wonder why Helvetica is not on Windows? Your whole argument in 37 falls apart.

bottom line: he should release the data for the limited purpose of verification. His refusal to do that would be direct evidence of stonewalling.

For the record, I’m agreeing with your #44. As usual, previous posters go far beyond your original point and started to claim that a claim of copyright is legally impossible, or that we have some legal right to the data (public money = public domain). This is hogwash.

From a legal point of view, science is not frustrated. Everyone is free to go and collect the same data to verify the claim. Then, if someone asks why it contradicts the previous analysis, one could answer “he won’t release his data and methods for verification”.

Gunnar, you are arguing a very narrow point about typefaces that I never raised. My point is that Jones is being very clever in how he is frustrating the process. Any attempt to use the legal system will be hopelessly time consuming. An interesting FOI request would be for either (a) the copyright notice attached to the data and methods along with the person claiming ownership of the copyright, or (b) the license that Jones signed that allowed him to view the IP (assuming they are claiming trade secret protection). I suspect such things do not exist. In which case, this IP argument fails. I also think it would be interesting to find out if the peer reviewers had access to this “IP”. If so, under what terms? How are they different from a third party wanting to review the data and methods?

>> Gunnar, you are arguing a very narrow point about typefaces that I never raised

We need to stop this IP discussion, as you are taking this off topic. However, My point is not narrow. You presented an invalid copyright claim, and implied that the subject claim was the same. I changed your description to a valid copyright claim, and assert that the claim by these scientific folks is the same as the valid claim. It’s the expression of facts which is a valid copyright.

As I’ve stated, the printer of the US legal code has successfully copyrighted the page numbers. They are not copyrighting legislation text, nor the numbers themselves (ie facts), just their expression of those numbers. So please, stop going down this intellectual dead end. No more IP discussion.

Gunnar: in science one’s methods and data are supposed to be open to inspection and replication. To get a paper published you must satisfy the reviewers that your analyses are correct. Proper statistics is usually required. Just because sloppy work sometimes gets into print doesn’t make it ok, even in a government report. This requirement that you do proper analyses and show exactly what you did is not met by saying: “go collect your own data”.

Gunnar, there is a difference between the letter ‘r’ and the typeface of an ‘r’. These are different concepts that you are confused about. There is no creative expression in a single letter. There is a creative expression in a typeface. This is off topic and not what I am talking about. I’d like to know exactly what they are claiming, that’s all. You are correct in that a copyright notice is not required, but I think an auditor should test whether they are claiming copyright or trade secrets and if so, on what basis. If they are claiming that underlying data used to produce works by scientist are subject to blanket copyright, and specifically a restriction on certain types of reproduction and redistribution, than that is pretty breathtaking.

>> in science one’s methods and data are supposed to be open to inspection and replication.

One would hope. It’s just a hope we have.

>> To get a paper published you must satisfy the reviewers that your analyses are correct.

Must? That’s between the author and the publishers.

>> This requirement that you do proper analyses and show exactly what you did is not met by saying: “go collect your own data”.

There is no such requirement. Your premise is wrong, which is apparently that “peer review” ensures scientific integrity. It does not. It’s only a QA process that some publications might choose to use, if they feel like it. And if they do, it means nothing. Scientific Integrity is ONLY ensured by the scientific method. In other words, “go collect your own data”.

Steve: Not entirely. Gunnar, I agree with your comments about peer review. As you realize, peer review is not an audit. I have seen no evidence in my limited experience with peer review that peer reviewers necessarily check to see whether data is even available. However, I disagree that this only leaves “collect your own data” as a riposte. It’s not possible for everyone to go drill their own ice core, just as it’s not possible for everyone to go do their own excavation of Babylon. In the U.S., there are government policies requiring authors to archive data if they received U.s. federal funding – which applies to virtually all of the data discussed at CA – the CSIRO case being an exception. As you recognize, it’s up to NSF to require compliance with this policy and NSF has abdicated their responsibility, the public is entitled to ask NSF to do their job and require authors to archive data. Similarly, many journals have policies requiring archiving of data and we are entitled to ask the journals to enforce their professed policies and to expose their failures to do so (which the journals dislike intensely.) If we then wish to hold them accountable for their hypocrisy in the court of public opinion, that too is our prerogative.

>> there is a difference between the letter ‘r’ and the typeface of an ‘r’. These are different concepts that you are confused about. There is no creative expression in a single letter. There is a creative expression in a typeface.

MPaul, you are the one who is confused. No one has claimed that facts are copyrighted, so just drop that flawed analogy. Only the expression. The letter ‘r’ is not protectable, but EVERY expression of the letter is. There is no requirement for “creative” expression. The courts do not judge between good art and bad art. You need to read my example of the page numbers.

>> but I think an auditor

They didn’t hire an auditor.

>> If they are claiming that underlying data used to produce works by scientist

They aren’t claiming the underlying facts are protectable, just their expression of that data.

Gunnar, I must disagree. If the scientific method does not include the concept of “show your work”, then nothing is really demonstrated by scientific research.

One can make claims that a given hypothesis has been confirmed, but without exposing the data and methods, it is simply a claim without support of any kind. At a statistical level, one needs to support the confidence interval for data, for model, and for model parameters. This requires exposing data and methods. Requires it.

Otherwise, all we’re publishing is informational/promotional notes about our work. Such a publication should be groundless as a basis for other work, and has no authority to be cited.

Mr Pete, it’s unclear what you disagree with, since I agree with what you say. We’re just at different levels of abstraction. Maybe you should review what “scientific method” refers to. An isolated human being on an island could use the SM to advance the state of scientific truth his entire life. No publications are necessary to learn about reality.

I’m not against “showing your work”, but your references to “Requires” and “authority” aren’t really compatible with liberty. It’s a free country.

Steve, I generally agree with your whole comment to #52. I would just like to clarify that govt policy and magazine policy does not equate to law (and you haven’t said it does), but some previous commenters are deluding themselves into thinking so. I have never said anything against fighting this in the court of public opinion.

Gunnar, I think we are talking past each other. The author is claiming some sort of IP protection when he says “I’m not able to hand over the data from the 13 models, due to restrictions on Intellectual Property”. We don’t know exactly what kind of IP protection he is claiming. It would be good to know. Is he claiming that the data is copyrighted or is he claiming they are trade secrets? If he is claiming they are trade secrets, then that is easily dealt with (and I think the press would find it to be an interesting controversy). If he is claiming the data is subject to copyright, I was simply observing that this would be harder to deal with and would, in fact, be a very clever stonewalling technique.

I agree with Gunnar that everyone is free to gather the same data. And if it contradicts, a suitable answer is “Here’s my data, check it. Ask the other person to release theirs so you can check it also. Then you can find out.”

I agree with others that that if you don’t make things reproducible, it’s just non-authoritative notes on stuff you did.

The point of the entire thing is that it’s not required to have legal standing to stonewall, just that it needs to be made too expensive to fight. They’re just excuses. We know how it should be, and does it really matter why it’s not that way?

The point isn’t about whether or not data/methods/code/ideas are IP rights. That’s simply a red herring, IMO.

Without data/code/methods etc., there is no way to verify anyone’s results. As Steve has reported on the Ababneh thesis, and likely on their own dendro expedition where they sampled some of Graybill’s stripbark trees, they had different results and/or conclusions. This can happen in any phase of scientific study. So, without providing all these things, you are reduced to making claims of untestable veracity, the acceptance or rejection of which are based on the belief (or lack thereof) in the conclusion(s) and/or the person making the announcements. That is not science.

So yes, Gunnar, someone could go sample the same ice cores as Lonnie Thompson. They could write up their own paper and submit it, coming to the same, similar, somewhat similar, slightly different, different, widely different, opposite conclusions as Thompson. Without code/methods/data, how can you resolve what would appear to be “Differences of opinion”.

If people want to argue over the meaning and results of the same data, that’s a good thing. Arguing over results that no one can see the basis of is just a food fight.

There may be “no legal controlling authority”, but if you want to be taken seriously, you should be required to make everything available to those who wish to replicate/validate your results/conclusions.

The best way to do this for the journals, may be to start a campaign asking people not to purchase/subscribe to these journals until they enforce their own requirements. The best way to get someone to change is to hit them in the pocketbook. Same for NSF. Start letter writing/email campaigns to those responsible for the NSF and don’t let up pressure until they enforce their own rules.

Gunnar, I think that US federal govt policy as expressed in executive orders is “law” for NSF and I think that such executive orders require NSF to adopt policies to ensure that researchers archive data. The problem, as endlessly discussed, is that they don’t for climate science. Does an ordinary U.S. citizen have standing to legally force NSF to comply with the law through litigation? I don’t know and it’s massively irrelevant.

Perhaps some posters misunderstand the issue, but the main point is that the stonewalling will get decided in the court of public opinion eventually as the stonewalling is inconsistent with the need to develop policy. Please do not respond to this.

So yes, Gunnar, someone could go sample the same ice cores as Lonnie Thompson. They could write up their own paper and submit it, coming to the same, similar, somewhat similar, slightly different, different, widely different, opposite conclusions as Thompson. Without code/methods/data, how can you resolve what would appear to be “Differences of opinion”.

One unchallenged result in print = apparent conclusiveness

Two similar results in print = real confidence

Two divergent results in print = a lack of confidence in either result

Two divergent results in print, where only one author divulges data and code = a great story.

If somebody took the time to do stuff like this, spaghetti graphs might look different; updating / replicating proxies is a good thing.

If somebody took the time to do stuff like this, spaghetti graphs might look different; updating / replicating proxies is a good thing.

Yes, it certainly is, where feasible. In cases where it isn’t feasible, then it is incumbent upon those who received federal grant money to ensure that everything is available. It is incumbent upon the government providing the funding to ensure that they are available.

Realistically, the NSF is not going to fund Lonnie Thompson going to Greenland to get ice cores and then fund Steve McIntyre to go to Greenland to get ice cores where Lonnie Thompson just obtained the same.

In the case of tree cores, assuming they are readily available to the public and one or more qualified persons can obtain them and have the resources to have them analyzed and report the results, then I agree with you.

But, as we are told repeatedly, research grants are difficult to come by. So, unless you can obtain money from benefactors, are independently wealthy, or manage to convince a research institution to provide funds to do what researcher X just did, it’s going to be difficult to do. Not impossible, especially in the US, but in some very remote areas, very difficult.

I agree with you here, and I suspect Gunnar would, too. One big elephant in the room that’s messing up people’s expectations of data disclosure is MONEY.

Where gov’t uses public tax dollars to pay for a particle accelerator, or a telescope, or an expedition to Antarctica, people have a reasonable expectation that researchers will follow through with their agreements to make their data public. The same would be true if the gov’t granted monopolies to certain researchers and denied Mr. Pete a license to sample BCPs. The public also has a reasonable expectation that the gov’t will hold the researchers to their agreements, after the money is spent, as Steve M. keeps saying.

Gunnar also alludes to another problem with money. Stanford and Berkeley might put off building a synchrotron radiation lab, because it’s cost effective to wait and lobby the Dept of Energy for a massive subsidy. The synchrotron labs end up generating a lot of revenue from pharmaceutical companies, but good science might be put off while construction grants are pursued. It’s not like these institutions couldn’t have afforded to build synchrotrons on their own.

The problem of subsidy exists, too. If the government subsidizes irreproducable proxy studies and computer models, that’s what your going to get more of. What science isn’t being done because universities and individual scientists are pursuing dollar matching ?

started to claim that a claim of copyright is legally impossible, or that we have some legal right to the data (public money = public domain). This is hogwash.

I don’t know if you are referring to one of my posts but DOD cannot copy right software. Code produced by DOD is the property of DOD not necessarily public domain though it can be. We call this government purpose rights. Depending on classification DOD funded materials can readily be made available to the public. IP does not usually enter into this decision unless the producer has injected IRAD developed materials to claim company proprietary rights. For example here is part of a header from a bit of software that is freely available if you know about it and if you get permission to have it:

// THIS IS GOVERNMENT OWNED SOFTWARE. This software must be
// accompanied by a signed User Agreement between the assigned agents of the
// User and the Government. The User shall not rename this software or merge
// this software in whole or in part, with other models or programs unless
// prior written approval is obtained from the appropriate assigned government
// agency, currently AFRL/RHCI. The User shall not use or permit use of this
// software for profit or in any manner offer it for sale. Software shall not be
// disclosed or transferred to any activity or firm without the prior written
// approval from the government assigned agency, currently AFRL/RHCI.

It is with some trepidation that I (anonomously) post some comments about this subject. Note that I do not work in the climate science field.

I am in a relatively distant part of one of the responsible organisations. I do believe that the draft report made an appearance prior to the reports actual anticipated release date – and though conspiracy theorists in other blogs have made much of this I’m not sure its anything other than what happens in any organisation from time to time.

With regards to IPR – many National Meteorological organisations – even those operating in a commercial manner, exchange their computer model output free of charge. This mutually beneficial exchange enables “poor man ensembles” to be created – estimating the degree of spread in forecasts etc.

Whilst the data can be used in aggregate form (ie most models have a tropical cyclone forming in two days) – or even in a de-identified form (ie one model has a tropical cyclone near the coast in three days) – part of the deal with access to SOME of these models is that they are not identified externally.

To small countries with limited budgets like Australia – free access to the best models in the world is a godsend to researchers and forecasters alike – and such agreements are treated with great respect and will not be jeopardised.

I was disappointed that Steven chose to place an objectionable quote from an entirely different organisation in line with this subject matter – the casual reader may well attribute that quote to CSIRO.

In other blog entries I also saw some criticism of one of the CSIRO correspondents (who had acknowledged poor media reporting) for not following up and writing letters to the responsible journalists. Some-one could do this 24 hours a day and still not receive satisfaction – the popular media DO NOT RESPOND to these requests. I also thought it somewhat disingenuous that the CSIRO correspondent’s comment about poor reporting was tied to particular news article – there is no indication that the CSIRO correspondent was talking about (or aware of) that particular article.

This site does its best work when it remains objective and balanced – as a fair to middling scientist I have learnt many useful things. However, when it dissolves into conspiracy theory – and drops the auditing badge – I respectfully tender that it does the community a disservice.

70. You seem like a decent guy and your points are for the most part expressed pleasantly, which I appreciate.

However, please understand that the the IPR excuse for not providing climate data is not going to cut it here nor in my opinion should it be tolerated in the world at large.

MAny climates scientists misinterpret my criticisms in this respect as attacks on their theories. In my opinion, I’m making observations that would help climate scientists build understanding for their theories. Given the underlying importance of the problem and in particular the urgency of the problem as represented by climate science organizations, the time for climate scientists and climate science organizations to set their own personal advancement and petty IPR as a priority is long gone.

I doubt that CSIRO would express their commitment to IPR ahead of their obligations to the public quite as candidly as Phil Jones, but to date, there has been no explanation from CSIRO, coherent or otherwise, about why they believe that petty personal IPR rights should supercede public disclosure obligations that even mining promoters have to adhere to.

Sarcasm was intended in the present post about the return of this ugly excuse.

However, it is a fact that it is the same excuse that Phil Jones used and I’m entitled to observe this. If CSIRO doesn’t want to be compared to other IPR excuse makers, then it has the option of not using the excuse.

I don’t think that Phil Jones personally held a seminar in the bowels of CSIRO on using IPR as a means of stonewalling the public nor did I allege this. I think that this ugly IPR excuse occurred to CSIRO separately as is evident in the post. Also it’s amazing how often people use the lack of conspiracy as a pretext to supposedly exonerate behavior that is unacceptable in each individual occurrence. Here I’ve criticized separate incidents of IPR excuse making. In this case, I detect a note of the following reasoning: “I know that there wasn’t a conspiracy. So the criticism here is wrong.” If that’s what you’re thinking, you’re totally off base. The issue is not a non-existent “conspiracy” between Phil Jones and CSIRO to stonewall the public that no one alleged; the issue is separate incidents of objectionable behavior.

I also criticized not sending correction advice to journalists, though I fail to see what was actually “misrepresented” in the article in question. Climate scientists are quick to write the National Post in Canada when they are criticized; if CSIRO thinks that a report in a major Australian news service has gone a bridge too far in over-stating their case, then they have similar obligation. We’ve observed in other contexts (e.g. Hansen Y2K, but others) that climate scientists seem to have eyes of eagles in detecting the slightest error in methodology that lowers a trend estimate, but their eyesight for errors the other way seems to be far less acute. Same principle here.

I agree with you here, and I suspect Gunnar would, too. One big elephant in the room that’s messing up people’s expectations of data disclosure is MONEY.

When all is said and done and all the plausible and implausible reasons for not revealing scientific data are put forth, the big elephant remaining in the room has a big question mark on its back: Why would not a scientist and the organizations they belong to and work for make every effort to provide the data they have (proudly I would assume) put together to reach, at least tentative, conclusions about the science?

To the degree with which these scientists go to not reveal their data, makes their conclusions just that much more difficult to accept by those of a non-consensus POV. To the degree that their fellow scientists and supporters (often with similar POVs) go to justify that with holding or to ignore efforts to have it revealed, the less respect they deserve outside their scientific communities.

What’s at stake is not the money, it is not the regulations and it is not someone’s interpretation of the regulations; it is the scientific integrity and perception of the quality of the work being reported.

A footnote to IP: If IP prevents the source data from being revealed in a timely fashion then that should prevent the work from being published in peer-reviewed articles. Of course, if it can be given a patent or a copywrite then where is the problem. If it is valuable information for the discoverers of the data then why would they publish conclusions, based on non-available data, that could have as much value as data itself.

It would seem to be in the best interest of those who do studies to publish their data because this is how they can get cited over and over when people use those data, as I have done many times. Some scientists may perhaps believe that if you want to use their raw data then you should include them as a coauthor–but that is also common practice and I have included many data originators as coauthors when the data were not already directly published (e.g., as a graph or summary table). In either case, open handedness can get one a lot of recognition. Tight fistedness only serves to make you look bad.

70. You also seem like a decent guy and your points are for the most part expressed pleasantly, which I also appreciate.

With regard to climate science – medical technology – pharmaceutical research – social sciences – nanotechnology – can it rationally be argued that every science paper published has full and open availability of all its component data? Do we demand (and get access to) every scrap of evidence that antibiotics (or childhood imunisations) are safe? What I (and apparently you) do demand is that the review process is accountable and effective. IMHO it does not mean that anybody anywhere has access to raw and intermediate data – but that someone can readily identify what data was sourced, how it was processed, what methodologies were used, and how the positive and negative results were statistically tested.

Meteorology is a wonderful international discipline where expensive data (we’re talking the output from the biggest supercomputers) is made available for free for research purposes. At least in my discipline I would not be able to provide that raw data to 1 or 1,000 or 1,000,000 interested parties. I do not know if that is part of CSIRO’s IPR issue – but it would not surprise me if it were.

I was wrong when I said the CSIRO correspondent didn’t have the news article available – it was linked in the original email that David sent. However I think the key point eing questioned in the article was “as temperatures begin to rise exponentially”. I don’t believe “exponentially” was in the media release.

On a final note about journalism – I googled my one famous misquote that went onto worldwide new services – there are just on 500 references available. Once the genie was out it couldn’t be stuffed back in. As my least favourite reporter said very deliberately: “I know the truth, you know the truth, but this makes a much better story”.

Kenneth Fritsch, 72:
I’m not sure if you’re stating a point of disagreement here. I have previously stated all the points you make about scientific integrity.

I added ONE [not THE] elephant of confusion for people. A lot of posters seem to have problems separating what scientists SHOULD do from what they MUST do. MUST implies the force of law, while SHOULD implies only a moral or ethical duty. Since some scientists MUST hand over data, some posters seem to want to say that all scientists MUST hand over data.

There are very few things people MUST do, nor should there be. If scientists agree to take gov’t resources in exchange for open access to their data and methods, then they MUST hand over the data and code. Gov’t agencies MUST enforce this open access to purchased information. [But what if they don’t ? It really becomes a political question which is why Steve M. is correct to state this battle will be won in the court of public opinion.]

I can’t remember anybody on this blog disagreeing with the premise that scientists SHOULD publish papers that describe their activities sufficiently well that a third party can replicate the experiment, and either reproduce or falsify the result. Where that can’t be done in a short article, as in a statistical interpretation of multiple proxies, the scientist SHOULD archive enough data and code to make the whole replicable [Sadly, I have seen people argue this point]. I also don’t remember anybody disagreeing with the point that journals, institutions, et Al. SHOULD enforce their policies that are designed to keep papers replicable.

If all of those ethical SHOULDs were performed, then science would benefit.

Make no mistake about it, though, what separates what scientists MUST do from what they SHOULD do is where they get their MONEY – and what strings have been attached to it.

I can’t remember anybody on this blog disagreeing with the premise that scientists SHOULD publish papers that describe their activities sufficiently well that a third party can replicate the experiment, and either reproduce or falsify the result. Where that can’t be done in a short article, as in a statistical interpretation of multiple proxies, the scientist SHOULD archive enough data and code to make the whole replicable [Sadly, I have seen people argue this point]. I also don’t remember anybody disagreeing with the point that journals, institutions, et Al. SHOULD enforce their policies that are designed to keep papers replicable.

I agree with your general premise on the differences between what an author must and should do — and would personally like to concentrate on the theme of what they should do and why they do not do it — without being forced to by pushing the FOIA and other means. While Steve M raises these issues and uses the FOIA as a tool for formalizing his approach, I also agree that his successes will come from public opinion pressures that his actions might arouse.

That he has proceeded through this route also makes a learning experience (almost as an aside) for those in doubt that the agencies involved have many alternatives for stalling and stalemating the process and in the end have it all judged in a rather arbitrary matter where a subjective view of the government’s and public’s interests is weighed. A weighing, that in my view, is going to be very dependent on a consensus view of the public in these matters.

That you cannot remember anybody disagreeing with the “ethical view” of science presented here, regardless of their POV with regards to the data-source-less paper contents/conclusions, is I guess part of my point. The default position is unfortunately papers published and peer-reviewed without the requirement that the source data be made available and therefore like a good politician, the scientists can come here and state their undying faith and stake in scientific integrity without lifting a finger of protest for changing the situation. In fact I have little regard for those scientists and their supporters who come here, and seemingly with intent, to change the subject to peripheral arguments.

Money will be an issue if and when the papers leading to important climate policy issues are seen by the public or demonstrated for them as lacking source data, and therefore being incomplete, and those resulting policy considerations are causing the public direct pain. Money will not be an issue until sufficient numbers of people want it withheld. I think that in light of the less than serious environment for climate policies currently, some climate scientists can play the game less seriously than they otherwise might be allowed.

With regard to climate science – medical technology – pharmaceutical research – social sciences – nanotechnology – can it rationally be argued that every science paper published has full and open availability of all its component data? Do we demand (and get access to) every scrap of evidence that antibiotics (or childhood imunisations) are safe?

I think you are somewhat misinformed on pharmaceutical research, which might prove a good model for climate data archiving. For almost any major clinical trial, you can obtain detailed data at clinicaltrials.gov, clinicalstudyresults.org or at the pharmaceutical company web site. This has proved an extremely valuable resource for researchers and allows an effective “audit” of pharmaceutical companies and the FDA. A recent (and highly publicized) case in point is Steve Nissen’s recent study published in the NEJM on Avandia. He used data on the GSK clinical-trials registry website in conjunction with other public data sets to produce a meta analysis on one of the world’s most widely prescribed drugs, identifying potential new risks. He submitted his novel findings to the NEJM within 6 days of gathering the data.

With regard to climate science – medical technology – pharmaceutical research – social sciences – nanotechnology – can it rationally be argued that every science paper published has full and open availability of all its component data? Do we demand (and get access to) every scrap of evidence that antibiotics (or childhood imunisations) are safe? What I (and apparently you) do demand is that the review process is accountable and effective. IMHO it does not mean that anybody anywhere has access to raw and intermediate data – but that someone can readily identify what data was sourced, how it was processed, what methodologies were used, and how the positive and negative results were statistically tested.

Your argument fails because of a crucial difference. In any situation where the results of research (in areas such as medical, pharmaceutical, engineering) can have a negative impact on humans or their environment, there are always critical evaluations done by groups whose sole purpose is to guarantee that the studies were done correctly and the results as stated are justifiable. I have been involved in drug studies where I had full access to all information from the study – design, data, and statistical methodology and programs as well as the ability to ask questions about what may not have been included. All of this information was proprietary so it was confidential and not to be further disclosed to individuals not entitled to see it. My job was to go through the studies questioning every detail in order verify the validity of the results.
If, in fact, there are serious dangers to humans indicated by climate science studies – consequences which involve possibly drastic action and/or enormous expenditures, then they should also be subject to the same type of verification as the studies mentioned above. However, there do not seem to be any groups whose sole purpose is to carry out the detailed verification called for by the supposed gravity of the situation (perhaps you could give an example or two of such groups if they exist). The peer review process in academic science does not even come close to achieving that role. It is eminently clear that the reviews are often superficial (since data and methodology are not provided) and done by persons whose academic livelihood is linked closely to the authors of the studies. Would you even accept a review of a drug study done by another employee of the same drug company – never mind that all the employee did was just to read the paper? The IPCC whose scientists are the same authors who push their own points of view? Seeing the methodological errors in many of the papers which have been picked apart on this web site, the need is there for independent review. But it can’t be done without the full disclosure of the data and methods. If the climate scientists are convinced they what they say is correct – enough to advocate the political actions that they do – then it is their duty to make this disclosure under the current circumstances.

#79
I agree completely. The greatest step forward in science was the change from reliance on received wisdom from an elite, to seeking objective truth based on measurement. The truth cannot be the sole province of an assertive wise elite: “Trust us. We’re the experts. We have the data. We have worked it all out. You don’t need to check it again.”

Students of nature and human nature know that the objective truth can be obscured for all sorts of reasons. The first duty of all of us is to establish objective truth, and the ONLY way to do that is to examine the measurements.

It hasn’t been good enough ever since the enlightenment to blindly trust the wise elite. And it isn’t now nor will it be in the future.

The CSIRO should stop playing games. Essentially its refusal to allow scrutiny is anti-science.

It seem to me you are puttng pressure on the wrong people. I put the pressure on my elected representitive. Then I’ll tell ten of my friend about it and they may put pressure on our representitive. If enough of us put on the pressure then something gets done, if our representitive wants to be re-elected.
example
July 16, 2008

Dear Sir;
You may be aware of the PR Challenge or Paleoclimate Reconstruction Challenge. http://www.pages.unibe.ch/science/prchallenge/index.html Many scientists of this group are the same “scientists” which give us the famous “Hockey Stick” reconstruction of our past climate. I should not have to remind you of the boondoggle surrounding the hockey stick starting with “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period to any input number resulted in the same graph being reconstructed.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I demand as a tax payer and citizen that:
A) An independent audit done to validate and verify all works from Paleoclimate Reconstruction Challenge before any government body and/or government employee can refer to and/or use in full and/or in part for any government function including the IPCC.
B) If any government funding is used in all and/or part of this reconstruction, the reconstruction shall be subjected to the principle of forecasting as described in Principles of Forecasting handbook.
C) If any government funding is used in all or part of this reconstruction, the reconstruction shall be subjected to the Data Quality Act.
D) If scientist and/or institution that does not comply with independent audit and/or principle of forecasting and/or Data Quality Act shall have his and/or hers and/or institution government funding suspended immediately.

It is not my desire to appear constantly critical of this blog – there are many excellent and thoughtful comments that I value. So my apologies for the gripes that follow.

Firstly, Steven has requested the the “c-word” not be used (as the blog owner – he has certain rights!). But how can we then comment on “I wonder whether stonewalling techniques are discussed behind closed doors at Team conferences” as it has the c-word all over it.

Secondly, Steven writes “If authors want to keep their data private, then don’t publish articles and, especially, don’t issue press releases.” This maybe fine if you live and work (and blog) in one of the richest nations in the world, with access to the biggest and best resources and systems – but what about a country like Australia? Should we be denied the opportunity to contribute because we don’t own the resoruces we utilise? (note that I don’t know if this applies to CSIRO IPR)

78 has a good point about medical research – serves me right for plucking an example without decent research. However I believe my point applies to many other fields of research.

and 74 – TS Eliot wrote “The Hollow Men”

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

But it is also a great Australian comedy show.

Steve: OK, I had meant that sentence sarcastically and I thought that was obvious. The idea of a bunch of climate scientists having a seminar on stonewalling methods, with learned discussion of how to best employ FOI clauses, is surely Monty Python-esque. I’m sure that we could write an amusing sketch of what such a seminar would look like. Irony is sometimes a little obscure to literally-minded readers and I apologize if this particular irony was lost on you. For the record, I did not intend that sentence to imply I thought that climate scientists actually hold Monty Python-esque conferences to discuss the latest stonewalling techniques. However I have been told that the issue of CA criticism of failing to archive data has been discussed and Briffa for one decided to stay the course in refusing data.]

As to what Australia can do – try doing what’s right. Only publish what you can support with data that can be made public. If other countries are the problem, then use what moral authority you have to publicly condemn these practices by the “richer” countries. A condemnation by CSIRO would have far more impact than anything that I can say here at CA. If that’s unsuccessful, then don’t perpetuate the problem. Refuse to use their studies until their data is public and note your refusal in your publications.

79 – I think if you review your post, and my quote, we are saying the same thing. Not all data can be made available all of the time. A strong effective and accountable peer review process does, however, need to be in place every time.

#83 and earlier. Companies are not required to let anyone off the street look at their books, but they are required to have their books professionally audited and to have their geological reports reviewed by an independent qualified consultant if they want to disseminate information to the public. Audits are expensive processes. One of my original points is that the amount of due diligence that goes into the most trivial offering of stock far exceeds the amount of due diligence that goes into peer review at a journal.

One obvious difference is that financial auditors are well-paid and esteemed professionals while journal peer reviewers do this as “volunteers” – or more accurately, they do so as part of their broader job description and are paid through having a job in the area. But the due diligence is negligible in the terms that I’m used to and the articles are the equivalent of “unaudited” financial statements. It doesn’t mean that they’re wrong, just that no independent due diligence has been on them.

In the paleoclimate field, there’s simply no reason for the data to be unavailable. Maybe there’s something different about models. But in the concrete examples that I’m most familiar with, for example, there’s no valid reason why Lonnie Thompson’s Dunde data (or Guliya data or Kilimanjaro data or whatever) shouldn’t be archived in its entirety.

And to the extent that the stonewalling is inconsistent with journal policies or funding policies, people are entitled to hold the journals and funding agencies to account for failing to ensure compliance with their policies.

I agree that we seem to be on the same page with regard to much of what you said. The point that I was trying to make was that given the importance of the issues and the complete lack of formal critical review of the climate studies, there can be absolutely NO justification for the withholding of either data or methodology particularly when the results are actively disseminated to the news media. There is a distinct need for pressure to be applied to those in the climate community who continually refuse to do so.

Hollow Men
The cries of poverty and handwringing seem a bit hollow. Why not simply push for transparency and simply don’t use data that is not available in a way to replicate significant findings? This pattern of obfuscation appears to follow the re-occuring plot line of the British comedy,
“Yes, Minister” with Sir Humphrey as the leading obfuscator!
But then you may simply be pulling our collective legs.

>> In fact I have little regard for those scientists and their supporters who come here, and seemingly with intent, to change the subject to peripheral arguments.

For the record, I am not a supporter of these scientists. People shouldn’t assume that anyone who takes issue with something is automatically in the enemy camp. In fact, I’m quite confident that there is no one on this blog more anti AGW than myself. I’m just sensitive to obviously wrong arguments. I agree with Steve’s subtle and effective approach. I consider the piling on argument “there are no IP rights” as equivalent to someone adding “besides, C02 doesn’t exist”.

I would also say that auditing (math analysis of their data) isn’t the only option. There are two approaches. In engineering, we call them verification and validation (Reference). Verification is checking that what you did, you did correctly. That’s the auditing function that Steve concentrates on, and this requires that the data and methods be exposed.

Validation is checking to see if you did the right thing. For this approach, you do not need the details (source code or measurement data) of the previous work. The scientific equivalent of validation is using the scientific method.

For example, if someone made the extraordinary claim that tree rings reflect temperature, and that based on tree rings, the temperature 1000 years ago was X, one can either verify their work or validate. In other words, one can demand that they release their data, or one can go out and sample trees very near the ones previously sampled, and show that tree rings do not reflect the known temperatures of the last 100 years. This new empirical data invalidates the previous pseudo hypothesis.

With a failed verification, we can only conclude that the proponent was incompetent or perhaps corrupt, but the hypothesis still stands. With a failed validation, the hypothesis itself is removed.

And for you folks talking about FOI or lobbying politicians, it’s not a smart chess move for 2 reasons. One, the above V&V argument, and two, they could simply switch to private funding. George Soros has plenty of money.

The elephant in the room for the public at large is not the purity of science it’s public policy.
It’s not unusual in democracies for the public to be asked to support policies supported by limited and incomplete data. Nor is it unusual for it to be asked to support policies based on necessarily secret data.
What is unsual in climate science is that the public is being asked to support a massive public policy based on data that has no need to be secret and is not only limited and incomplete but is frequently kept sequestered in a manner which does not necessarily imply bias (or shoddy workmanship) but does raise the suspicion and more important make it difficult or impossible to determine if bias or incompetence exists.

I understand IPR regarding potential commercial applications. But was Mann or Briffa planning on patenting or copywriting the hockey stick? I would have thought the NHL already had that covered.

For the record, I am not a supporter of these scientists. People shouldn’t assume that anyone who takes issue with something is automatically in the enemy camp. In fact, I’m quite confident that there is no one on this blog more anti AGW than myself. I’m just sensitive to obviously wrong arguments. I agree with Steve’s subtle and effective approach. I consider the piling on argument “there are no IP rights” as equivalent to someone adding “besides, C02 doesn’t exist”.

My point is fairly simple: I am impatient to a fault and I get frustrated in viewing these peripheral arguments (I am willing to concede that some posters here might be overly optimistic in their views of what is legally available to prevent the withholding of source data) when the important point to me is why some of these authors and their supporters are consciously not making a major effort to provide the data requested. It certainly keeps a legitimate question in the forefront of the discussion with that being: what might the authors or backing organizations be hiding.

I am also aware that you and posters, such as Jim Edwards, want to keep the record clear on what is legally possible. But again that is not the major point here because in most cases one does not know with any certainty what the particulars are for the case under discussion and furthermore one can readily see from Steve M’s efforts that the processes in place, outside perhaps the IP issues, can be applied rather arbitrarily, whether that be a judgment of the applicable government law involved or the by-laws of the publishing journal.

The critical question is not whether the authors/organizations can withhold the data, but why do they (consciously and with forethought and some effort) withhold it.

I think it should be fairly clear that if you expect consensus, if you expect
to convince people, you cannot do that effectively in the modern world without
supplying source materials.

Long ago a priest would tell his flock that “the bible says” and since he was the only one who could read, they had little choice but to follow. Now, I am not suggesting that climate science is a religion, and if it were, the hymns would suck.

I get frustrated in viewing these peripheral arguments … when the important point to me is why [emphasis added] some of these authors and their supporters are consciously not making a major effort to provide the data requested.

Unless we find some smoking guns, I think it’s very unlikely we’ll ever to be able to demonstrate WHY each scientist is withholding data. We can speculate, and probably make very good guesses, but we can’t read minds. Even if they tell us why [“IPR”], we don’t know that’s their motivation – they may be just choosing a tactic they believe will work to hide their data, which they hide for some other reason.

Pursuing the goal of determining intent is analogous to hate crimes prosecution, where no witnesses heard what went down. If a person is killed, do we really need to prove that he was singled out b/c of racism. Isn’t it enough that the victim was a human being and shouldn’t have been murdered ? We can punish the murderers without engaging in mindreading as to whether the bad actors had racist intent or simply picked a victim who happened to be of a different race. I don’t care if a climate scientist owns Exxon stock or is a socialist, greenie activist – I just want them to do good science.

The WHY’s not as important as the WHAT. It should be enough that, seemingly, we all agree that:
1) public policy should be based on good science,
2) there is an existing professional standard for scientific disclosure [reproducibility] that is not being met by certain scientists, journals, and organizations,
3) Results from some papers that are key to forging public policy have not been, and cannot be, reproduced.

The story that needs to get out to the public is that good science is being stonewalled by lead authors of the IPCC assessment reports. Trying to debate WHY allows a winning argument to turn into a red-blue argument.

The WHY’s not as important as the WHAT. It should be enough that, seemingly, we all agree that:

1) public policy should be based on good science,
2) there is an existing professional standard for scientific disclosure [reproducibility] that is not being met by certain scientists, journals, and organizations,
3) Results from some papers that are key to forging public policy have not been, and cannot be, reproduced.

You have clearly stated the “What” in the excerpt above and I will agree that that is a settled issue. A reality check then would say yes, yes we all agree, but as Steve M and others pursuing these noble ends have demonstrated, the powers to be (government, publishing organizations, the effected science community, their supporters, etc.) when confronted with these issues take actions that can easily be viewed as presenting excuses and/or arbitrarily interpreting the rules to avoid the points of the “What” listed above — while at the same time mouthing the points of the “What” as their own good intentions.

At what point are we allowed to consider the “Why”. Stalemating has been a rather general and immediate reaction to the requests that I have seen related here at CA and those that have had some degree of success have been rendered begrudgingly. I do not see much coming out of the “What” until such time that public opinion changes significantly. In the meantime I will allow myself to conjecture the “Why” and it will not contain any red/blue state leanings or conspiracies or even a general application. Sloppy work comes to mind first and then cherry-picked data that might not stand up to sensitivity testing. Not revealing data and methods is so counter to almost all scientists’ instincts about work that they proudly have produced, that is was always my experience that scientists tended to give up more information than permitted rather than less. And without any conjecture I can point to papers/organizations that withhold information as unreliable sources.

We can always consider it, but I would try not to argue it [and I’ve been guilty…]; I don’t know if / when that’s an argument that will ever fly among the general public.

As much as it might be appropriate, I bet the bad actors will never be subjected to any sort of public scorn – they’ll just bask in the collective glow of their shared Nobel. I just hope that the right public policy is eventually implemented.

It seems to me that the skeptical position is such an underdog position in the public arena that skeptics have to accept the unfairness and choose an argument that can win. It reminds me of desegregation of the South, where the minority position couldn’t catch a fair break. Arguments that black men were being accused of raping white women and lynched, or falsely convicted of crimes and enslaved through prison labor, or denied public sector jobs, did not gather support. Racial bigotry was too rampant – even in the North. Many whites believed black males were violent.

It’s not a coincidence that Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall chose to challenge legal segregation in public schools. While many whites could not see clearly when it came to black men, the situation was different when it came to innocent, black children. Houston and Marshall knew only the right argument could succeed – hence Brown v Board.

Today, the belief in “denialism”, the “precautionary principle”, and “consensus” seem so strong. What benefit will accrue from convincing the public that, out of the ‘thousands and thousands’ of scientists who agree with the alarmist AGW hypothesis, one of them fabricated data ?

I think the public can understand an hypothetical argument like this, however [all numerical values made up…]:
1) There are twelve main studies that form the backbone of the alarmist AGW hypothesis.
2) None of the 12 have ever been double-checked.
3) 8 of the 12 studies violate basic tenants of good science, because they do not have a good enough description to allow somebody to repeat the work.
4) Some of the biggest names in climate science have been fighting for several years to keep from having to adequately describe what was done in these 8 studies.
5) It would cost $20 million to double check these 12 studies over the next 6 months.
6) We’re being asked to spend $6 trillion in resources to keep the predicted disasters from occuring.
7) Let’s ignore these 12 studies until we double-check them.

Today, the belief in “denialism”, the “precautionary principle”, and “consensus” seem so strong. What benefit will accrue from convincing the public that, out of the ‘thousands and thousands’ of scientists who agree with the alarmist AGW hypothesis, one of them fabricated data ?

I have used too much band width on this subject already, but in I think we would probably be in essential agreement about some of the practicalities of the matter but not all.

In my view it has never been a case of fabricating data, but certainly I have seen evidence of cherry picking data, sloppy work, using unorthodox methods and confusing science and policy roles. Some of this may be committed intentionally but much of it seems to be done because it is acceptable within this particular science community.

I think the public can understand an hypothetical argument like this, however [all numerical values made up…]:
1) There are twelve main studies that form the backbone of the alarmist AGW hypothesis.
2) None of the 12 have ever been double-checked.
3) 8 of the 12 studies violate basic tenants of good science, because they do not have a good enough description to allow somebody to repeat the work.
4) Some of the biggest names in climate science have been fighting for several years to keep from having to adequately describe what was done in these 8 studies.
5) It would cost $20 million to double check these 12 studies over the next 6 months.
6) We’re being asked to spend $6 trillion in resources to keep the predicted disasters from occuring.
7) Let’s ignore these 12 studies until we double-check them.

You seem to be making a case for some outside interference here into the climate science community and/or convincing the public from outside that community. That in my estimation will never happen. Any changes will come from within. At some point in the not too distance future all this will play out with regards to science’s predictions, the actual GHG emission scenarios and the effect all this has on the public.

Few non-Australians understand us because we are such a tiny part of the world population. We seldom appear in the news reports of other countries.

Australia is a rich country with a land mass large enough to provide significant climate data for the southern hemisphere. Australians settling in remote places in the last hundred years or more would commonly set up weather stations of various sophistication – the populace was not uneducated.

Australia is somewhat isolated geographically and so it values some proud national traits. These have included fair performance in many sports, a high success in science (e.g. Nobel Laureates per capita), mineral exploration, wine making, early development of aviation, high per capita income, to name some.

Australia also lacks defining identity in some areas. We have no national dress, no national cuisine, a short post-1788 heritage, few good writers, musicians, ice hockey teams and antique furniture/jewellery.

Isolation means that your neighbour 10 km away is not over the USA-Canada or USA-Mexico border, so identity is more self-contained. Comparisons with other countries are harder, so poor performance in a sector can be somewhat camouflaged. The “White Australia” policy of immigration for many decades was Australia going it alone.

In recent times, Australia has been “going it alone” again, probably from a need that some politicians feel to be remembered in history as “The Father of Such and Such” or the “Inventor of the Internet”, if you know the thrust of what I mean.

This is in partial explanation of its peculiar policies regarding Global Warming. It is a mix of people imagining that they are the forefront of the action on Global Warming, as if Australian actions can have significant effect. With a population of 20 million, that is an unlikely outcome.

Another Australia “go it alone” is a zealotry-based political ban on nuclear power generation, one of the few significant, successful, large, working mitigation technologies. Most Australians have never seen a nuke and have only the descriptions of others to guide them. Even a recent report on the cost of nuclear power here started with typical other-country costs and added an imagined Australian extra factor, factoring it right out of the cost equation.

But, just as the political masters (who eventually control research funding allocation) have decreed there shall be no nukes, they have also decreed that Australia should lead the world in Global Warming self-flagellation. Therefore, institutions like CSIRO and ANSTO (Nuclear Science and Technology) have for some years been told to count frogs or analyse fish for contaminants or try to get another small percentage point from a solar cell. Australia is now regarded as unready to adopt nuclear power because of a lack of people with required skills.

Instead we have an overabundance of people writing about cause and effect (or more often, correlation) in Global Warming, because they have had luxury funding. Of course these people do not want critical examination of their work – that could lead to the loss of the gravy train.

The aspect of this stonewalling of late that annoys me most – as one close to it – is the “Never say sorry” syndrome. I was told this week about global surface temperatures “The MSU2lt data has a trend which is mathematical(ly) indistinguishable from the trend a(t) the surface – that is they agree with the surface.” Now the MSU 2lt satellite graphs are visually somewhat different to the RSS satellite graphs. Where does this leave the RSS data?

It is the failure to address the LACK of a finding that annoys me, as it does to fail to mention a contra finding.

This does not mean that I condone stonewalling. I’m as open as any person, as CA readers might have noted. This stonewalling is just a passing phase, like losing milk teeth. If you put one under a glass a fairy gives you some money overnight, the story goes.

Raw data in digital format for GISS analysis of surface temperature change from the Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and M. Sato. 1999. GISS analysis of surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 30997-31022, as far as I can tell. It was one of the Hansen publications that someone was seeking the raw digital data. I lost all 3 of my computers to a d/l virus that bypassed my virus protection. I will ask the FOIA people to send me my request back to me to make sure.

Here is a more technical quote from Trevor Bruesch, econometrician, who analysed satellite trends and reported to me in a most cooperative way that _

Geoff,

A quick follow-up on a wet Sunday afternoon.

I obtained the RSS data that appear to lie behind the chart you
pointed me at. The time series properties are similar to the MSU data
in that there is no apparent seasonality and only short serial
correlation. Again there is no evidence to support a unit root. So
the model is stationary serial correlation about a linear trend.

Using the data for Jan 1979 to June 2008 (one month later start date
and the same end date as the MSU data) I get a warming trend of 0.016
degrees a year, which is highly statistically significant. As I
predicted by eyeballing the chart, that’s a higher trend than in the MSU data.

Remarkably, it is the same trend rate as implied by our earlier
analysis of the annual T3GL data, over the same general period
(although in that case the actual period was 1976-2007).

I don’t make too much of this analysis because “trend” is a long-run
phenomenon. But if we want to talk trends over periods of 30-odd
years of satellite data, these are they. There is nothing in the MSU
or RSS data to contradict what we have written in our paper.

Steve, Is there a reason why my previous post concerning possible reasons why the CSIRO may not be releasing data was removed? I quoted a commenter from Andrew Bolt’s page. Was there a problem with what I did?

It’s Australia and we now have an “Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator”.

There is a disclaimer:

The Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator (ORER) website is presented by the Commonwealth for the purpose of disseminating information free of charge for the benefit of the public.

The Commonwealth monitors the quality of the information available on this website and updates the information regularly.

However, the Commonwealth does not guarantee, and accepts no legal liability whatsoever arising from or connected to, the accuracy, reliability, currency or completeness of any material contained on this website or on any linked site.
The Commonwealth recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to their use of this website and that users carefully evaluate the accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance of the material on the website for their purposes.

This website is not a substitute for independent professional advice and users should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.

The material on this website may include the views or recommendations of third parties, which do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commonwealth, or indicate its commitment to a particular course of action.

(My bold).

Also,

The Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator is a statutory authority established to oversee the implementation of the Australian Government’s mandatory renewable energy target.

A few days ago, CSIRO issued a report about the impact of global warming on the fishing resources of Australia. It came out with an introduction by the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, which is responsible for the development and ongoing operation of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts web site.

So what does this department then write – a disclaimer.

However, the Commonwealth does not guarantee, and accepts no legal liability whatsoever arising from or connected to, the accuracy, reliability, currency or completeness of any material contained on this web site or on any linked site.

One must presume that the original CSIRO report, by being on or linked to this website, cannot attract legal liability. One wonders if there is precedent for such a way to avoid liability, for example if deliberate negligence was alleged or proven.

I used to be in the Royal Australian Air Force Academy. As part of a severe bastardisation policy, there was frequent repetition of the words,

Do what I say, not what I do.

It is sad to hear this stone age mentality coming from Government.

7 Trackbacks

[…] Comment on CSIRO adopts Phil Jones’ Stonewall Tactic by Ian Castles By Ian Castles With respect to the Castles and Henderson (C&H) critique of the IPCC emissions scenarios, Hennessy said that the claims had ‘been reviewed and refuted by international experts (Nakicenovic and others)’, and on the just-published … Comments for Climate Audit – http://www.climateaudit.org […]

[…] Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit describes the saga as “a recent lurid report on Australian drought, only to be stonewalled on grounds of ‘Intellectual Property Rights’, a pretext familiar to CA readers.” In another post he finds fault with another aspect of the report, writing that CSIRO produced “an interesting example of a promotional press release, that would daunt the most adventurous stock promoter, followed by mealy-mouthed and untrue excuses by the government department.” Further afield, Agmates Rural News linked in with story headlined Scientists & Farmers Question CSIRO Scare Mongering Reports. The very readable SeaBlogger refers to it as “the Australia drought hysteria.” It doesn’t matter that paleoclimatology shows two modes for (Australian) regional climate: dry and drier. Any modern drought must be climate change caused by your SUV. Meanwhile, I have been following up on the claim made by Mr Hennessy that “I’m not able to hand over the data from the 13 models, due to restrictions on Intellectual Property”. I wanted to get a copy of the CSIRO IPR policy to see if this was true, or simply a case of an over-zealous employee. I emailed a Dr Tendulkar listed as a contact for IP on the CSIRO web site and asked for a link to a policy and if it might restrict data access in this way. I also emailed a Ms Caldwell in the Freedom of Information (FOI) Unit for information about starting an FOI request for the data. To date I have neither received a reply nor acknowledgment of my emails. Virtually no information is provided on starting an FOI request. The website states only that: FOI applications should be accompanied by the statutory A$30 application fee. There are some additional charges associated with processing requests including search, retrieval and photocopying fees. I asked what costs could potentially be involved. I am concerned because when the then opposition environment minister Peter Garrett put an (unsuccessful) FOI application to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) for documents on the effect of global warming on the Great Barrier Reef he was hit with an administration charge of more than $12,000. Part of the $12,718.80 costs included charges for 107.6 hours of search and retrieval time, 539 hours of decision-making time and photocopying of more than 3250 pages at 10 cents per page. I can’t complain about the hourly rate of less than $20 an hour, but they seem to work exceedingly slowly. Peter Garrett is now environment minister in the newly elected Rudd Labor Government. He might be sympathetic to an appeal, given his experiences with getting information out of government research organizations. Previous in series […]